Page images
PDF
EPUB

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS

thereupon made, is conclusive if there is eviPEOPLE of the State of California, Plain-dence to support it." There was some conflict tiff and Respondent, v. J A. WARREN, De- in the testimony, but there was abundant evifendant and appellant. (Cr. 796.) (District dence to justify the finding in favor of plainCourt of Appeal, Third District, California. tiff below. We find no reversible error in the Sept. 16, 1924.) Appeal by defendant from a record. Supersedeas denied, judgment afjudgment of conviction of escaping from state firmed. prison of the Superior Court of Sacramento County; Charles O. Busick, Judge. Affirmed. Lee Gebhart, of Sacramento, for appellant. U. S. Webb, Atty. Gen., and J. Charles Jones, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the People.

Mr. Justice ALLEN (sitting for Chief Justice TELLER) and Mr. Justice DENISON concur.

3

BEYNON, Defendant in Error. (No. 10973.) Frank FAJKOSZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. Agnes (Supreme Court of Colorado. Nov. 10, 1924. Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1924.) Department 2. Error to District Court, Weld County; Neil F. Graham, Judge. Supersedeas denied. Judgment affirmed. Morrissey, Mahoney & Scofield, Thompson, of Greeley, and Rinn & Archibald, of Denver, for plaintiff in error. William Hall of Boulder, for defendant in error.

PLUMMER, J. It appears from the transcript that the defendant was, prior to the offense upon which he was tried and convicted in this court, lawfully committed to the state prison at Folsom, and, during the time for which he had been sentenced, placed at work upon the highways of the state under the surveillance of prison guards, and while there, under their custody and control, effected his escape, was thereafter captured, and prosecuted for such offense. All the points made for reversal in this case are identical in substance signee of an option to purchase town lots, WHITFORD, J. Defendant in error, as aswith the questions raised and decided adverse- brought suit against the plaintiff in error to ly to the contention of appellant in the follow-enforce the specific performance of the option ing cases: People v. Vanderburg, 227 P. 621; contract. The answer denied the execution of People v. French, 61 Cal. App. 275, 214 P. the option and alleged fraud in procuring its 1003; People v. Lewis, 61 Cal. App. 280, 214 execution. The optionee conveyed the lots to P. 1005; People v. Johnson (Cal. App.) 228 the plaintiff in error by warranty deed, in satP. 357. All of these cases and the case at isfaction of a prior indebtedness of $1,000 and bar show that the defendants were taken from the additional consideration of $1,000 in cash, Folsom to different road camps, placed in and at the same time and as a part of the same charge of guards, and while at work upon the transaction took back from his grantee the ophighway effected their escape. Under these cir- tion in question, giving the grantor the right cumstances, it was held that the superior court to repurchase the property within a year for of the county of Sacramento had jurisdiction, $2,000. The trial was to the court. The eviand that also all the points raised in this case for reversal are without merit. Upon the au- erally for the plaintiff and against the defenddence was conflicting, and the court found genthority of the cases cited, judgment and orders ant upon the issues joined. The court exof the trial court in this case are affirmed. pressly found that "the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint have been and are sustained by the evidence, and that the allegations of fraud set forth in defendant's answer have not been sustained by the evidence." The evidence introduced upon the trial was clearly sufficient Under the rule so frequently announced, the to support the allegations of the complaint. finding of the trial court is conclusive upon us, and we are precluded from disturbing its Colo. 279-282, 57 P. 703. However, we have findings upon review. Barnett v. Jaynes, 26 carefully read the entire testimony, and are not only satisfied that the evidence is sufficient that the clear preponderance of the testimony to sustain the findings of the court below, but supports the plaintiff's contention. Our ex

We concur: FINCH, P. J.; HART, J.

ror.

2

CATLIN & CATLIN, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Charles J. MOYNIHAN, Deputy Bank Commissioner, in charge of the Home State Bank, and Charles A. W. Gordon, Defendants in Er(No. 10992.) (Supreme Court of Colorado. July 7, 1924. Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1924.) Department 2. Error to Montrose County Court; S. S. Sherman, Judge. On application for supersedeas. Supersedeas denied. Judgment affirmed. Catlin & Catlin, of Montrose, for plaintiffs in error. Moynihan, Hughes, Knous & Fauber, of Montrose, for defend

ants in error.

WHITFORD, J. A verdict for $50 was directed by the court against the plaintiff in error as garnishee. After the evidence was all in and both plaintiff and defendant had rested, each side requested the court to direct a verdict in his favor. We said, in Auto Co. v. Petter, 72 Colo. 570, 212 P. 823, that "a request by each party for a directed verdict is equivalent to a stipulation that the facts may

amination of the record convinces us that the
vened that would justify a reversal. Superse-
case was fairly tried and that no errors inter-
deas denied, judgment affirmed.

TELLER) and Mr. Justice DENISON concur.
Mr. Justice ALLEN (sitting for Chief Justice

4

J. W. JAMES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Alvin S.

(230 P.)

(Supreme Court of Colorado. Nov. 10, 1924. brings the case here for review and applies Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1924.) Error to Dis- for supersedeas. Both parties ask that the trict Court, City and County of Denver; cause be determined upon this application. Charles C. Butler, Judge. Harry S. Class, of The parties are here designated as in the trial Brighton, for plaintiff in error. J. W. Kelley, court. We have examined the record with the of Denver, for defendant in error. utmost care and have read all of the evidence. Defendant had executed a written lease to defendant's assignor. Defendant had received the sum of $500 as security for the fulfillment of the obligations of the lease, and in the lease agreed that a proportion of this sum should be deducted from the monthly rent, and in the event of cancellation of the lease before the deposit was exhausted the balance should be returned to the lessee. Only questions of fact are involved, and as to the material facts the testimony was that of the parties to the suit. The evidence was conflicting, and it was wholly within the province of the court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Under the repeated decisions of this court we cannot disturb the findings and judgment of the trial court. Peppers v. Heiserman, 74 Colo. 139, 219 P. 781; Insurance Co. v. Fukushima, 74 Colo. 236, 220 P. 994; Clover Leaf Co. v Steamboat Springs Co., 74 Colo. 377, 221 P. 887; Lathrop v. John, 73 Colo 304, 306, 215 P. 472. There appearing no error in the record, the supersedeas is denied, and the judgment affirmed. TELLER, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.

TELLER, C. J. Defendant in error brought suit against the plaintiff in error for damages resulting to the plaintiff from his purchase from defendant of a moving picture business at Brighton, Colo., said purchase being alleged to have been induced by fraudulent representations made by defendant in the action. The action was for $3,000 paid on account of the purchase price. Verdict and judgment were for $2,000. Plaintiff in error appears to consider this an action to rescind, but the complaint shows that it was an action for damages, both actual and exemplary, and charged fraud, malice, etc., upon which a body judgment was demanded. There are numerous assignments of error concerning the giving and the refusing of instructions, but, as none of the instructions given or requested are contained in the abstract, we cannot consider them. The principal points argued are that the evidence does not support the verdict, in that the evidence shows that the minds of the parties had met before the alleged misrepresentations upon which the plaintiff relied were made, if made at all. Counsel for plaintiff in error state that reliance is had upon the proposition that the testimony of the plaintiff in the cause is improbable and unworthy of belief. There was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would fully justify them in finding that the defendant made false and fraudulent statements to the plaintiff during the negotiations for the purchase of the busi-spondents, v. A. E. EHLE and Theodore H. ness; that these statements were made before the final conclusion of the contract of purchase; that they were relied upon by the plaintiff, and were the inducing cause of his making the purchase. It is further urged that the court erred in refusing a change of venue. The abstract states that such a motion was filed, with an affidavit annexed in support thereof, to which the plaintiff filed a counter affidavit. As these affidavits are not before us, we cannot consider the error assigned. It should be observed, further, that so far as the abstract shows no exception was taken to the order refusing the change. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

CAMPBELL and SHEAFOR, JJ., concur.

E. A. TOWER, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel WEINRUB, Defendant in Error. (No. 11108.) (Supreme Court of Colorado. Nov. 10, 1924.) Error to County Court, City and County of Denver; George W. Dunn, Judge. E. A. Tower, of Denver, for plaintiff in error. Ira C. Rothgerber and Walter M. Appel, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

SHEAFOR, J. The defendant in error, Weinrub, brought this suit against the plaintiff in error in the justice court, and recovered judgment. The defendant appealed to the county court, where a trial was had to the court, resulting in a general finding in favor of plaintiff, and judgment against defendant for the sum of $165 and costs. The defendant

2

John MARTENS and Adeline Martens, Re

Ehle, Defendants, and Mrs. Ira Pottenger, Anho. Dec. 2, 1924) Appeal from District pellant. (No. 4187.) (Supreme Court of IdaCourt, Valley County; B. S. Varian, Judge. Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs. lant. R. B. Ayers, of Emmett, for respondents. Affirmed. S. T. Schreiber, of Boise, for appel

McCARTHY, C. J. June 14, 1920, respondents brought an action against defendants and appellant in the district court for Valley county to quiet title to certain real estate. September 13, 1920, appellant filed an answer and cross-complaint. After trial, the district court made its findings in favor of respondents, and April 18, 1922, entered a decree quieting their title in the premises as against defendants and appellant. May 3, 1922, appellant perfected this appeal from that judgment. A transcript on appeal was filed in this court June 25, 1923. October 14, 1924, the case came on for hearing, no briefs having been filed. Appellant was not represented in person or by counsel on the hearing. Respondents appeared by counsel. Thereupon the case was taken under advisement on the record. Thereafter appellant's counsel filed a motion asking leave to submit a brief, or at least a written assignment of error. In view of the fact that the appeal was perfected 2 years ago, that the transcript has been on file in this court about 16 months, and that the affidavit in support of the motion does not show any excuse for the failure to file a brief, we conclude that there is no satisfactory reason for adding to the delay which has already occurred in the prosecution of this appeal, and that the motion should be denied. Under rule 48 an affirmance of the judgment is

in order. However, we have examined the as-, Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 18, 1924.) signments of error which counsel tendered with his motion, and an examination of the record convinces us that they are not well taken. The judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents. DUNN and WM. E. LEE, JJ., concur.

STATE of Idaho, Respondent, v. B. E. PEDERSON, Appellant. (No. 4344.) (Supreme Court of Idaho. Dec. 2, 1924.) Appeal from District Court, Canyon County; Ed. L Bryan, Judge. Appeal from judgment of conviction of obtaining money by false pretenses. Affirmed. L. D. Hyslop, of Caldwell, A. H. Connor, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Boone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State

MCCARTHY, C. J. On November 25, 1923, appellant perfected his appeal from a judgment of conviction of obtaining money under false pretenses rendered against him in the district court of the Seventh judicial district for Canyon county. On March 17, 1924, the transcript on appeal was filed in this court. On May 12, 1924, appellant's attorneys withdrew. On June 20, 1924, appellant applied in proper person for an order extending the. time to file his brief in this court, and the court granted an order extending the time to and including August 21, 1924. Since that time there has been no brief filed and no substitution of attorney. The case was duly set down for hearing on October 14. Appellant did not appear either in person or by attorney. Respondent was represented by the Attorney General. Under rule 48 it would be proper for this court to affirm the judgment without examining the record. However, we have taken the precaution of examining the record for fundamental error. Finding no such error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

DUNN and WM. E. LEE, JJ., concur.

2

H. F. BEMIS, J. J. Riffel, Frank Riggs, Tress Riggs, and Chas. E. Jontra, Plaintiffs in Error, v William CARSON, Defendant in Error. (No. 14931.) (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov 18, 1924.) Appeal from District Court, Ellis County; T. P. Clay, Judge. Reversed and remanded. C. B. Leedy and T. R. Blaine, both of Arnett, for plaintiffs in error. B. F. Barnett, of Shattuck, and Charles Swindall, of Woodward, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Upon authority of Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okl. 469, 106 P. 957, the cause is reversed, and remanded for new trial, for failure of defendant in error to file brief as provided in rule 7 of this court.

3

P. J. DICKERSON and Blanche F. Dickerson, Plaintiff's in Error, v. Margaret BOTCHLEOTT, Administrator with will annexed of estate of Fred Botchleott, deceased, Margaret Botchleott, Ida Anderson, Dorsey Comstock, and the City Guarantee Bank of Hobart, formerly the City National Bank of Hobart, De

Error

from District Court, Kiowa County; Thomas A. Edwards, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Philip J. Dickerson, of Pawhuska, for plaintiffs in error. Leahy, Macdonald & Files, of Pawhuska, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. Upon authority of Ellis v. Outler, 25 Okl. 469, 106 P. 957, the cause is reversed, and remanded for new trial, for fail

ure of defendant in error to comply with rule

7 of this court.

J. E. CROSSMAN OIL & DEVELOPMENT CO. et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Hommer S. CROSSMAN, Defendant in Error. (No. 14977.) (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 18, 1924.) Appeal from District Court, Creek County; Fred A. Speakman, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Hiles, Newell & Brown, of Edwardsville, Ill., William J. Baxter, of Granite City, Ill., and Thompson & Smith, of Sapulpa, for plaintiffs in error Chas. Richardson, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

Outler, 25 Okl. 469, 106 P. 957, the cause is PER CURIAM. Upon authority of Ellis v. reversed, and remanded for new trial, for failure of defendant in error to file brief as provided in rule 7 of this court.

5

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. W. WRIGHT, County Treasurer of Adair County, Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. 13809.) (Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Nov. 25, 1924.) Error from District Court, Adair County; J. H. Jarman, Judge. Reversed and remanded. W. F. Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., and Stuart, Sharp & Cruce, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error. G. O. Grant, Co. Atty., of Jay, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, C. Upon authority of Ellis v. Outler et al., 25 Okl. 469, 106 P. 957, the for failure of defendant in error to comply cause is reversed, and remanded for new trial, with rule 7 of this court.

6

George ALLISON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4568.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 15, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Choctaw County; Choice D. Holden, Judge George Allison was convicted of allowing stock to run at large, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed. Howe & Howe, of Hugo, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. George Allison was by a verdict of a jury rendered in the county court of Choctaw county found guilty of the offense of illegally permitting his hogs to run at large. The penalty assessed was a fine of $1. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because it was filed too late, at a date more than 60 days after the final judgment was rendered, and no order appears extending the time; also for the further rea

(230 P.)

the county attorney or court clerk, as pro- | parent error warranting a reversal, the judgvided by statute. The record discloses that ment is affirmed. both the grounds set forth in the motion to dismiss are well taken. It is therefore ordered that this appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

[ocr errors]

3

E. E. HAMPTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4705.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 25, 1924.) Appeal from MuWarren, Judge. E. E. Hampton was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed. Guy Wilson and Ingraham & Bicking, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Guy CHAPMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v.nicipal Criminal Court of City of Tulsa; G. E. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No A-4636.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 22, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; John P. Boyd, Judge. Guy Chapman was convicted of the offense of conveying intoxicating liquor and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to serve 30 days in the county jail, and appeals. Affirmed. Munroe & Nicodemus, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for

the State.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, E. E. Hampton, was convicted in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa on a charge that he did have in his possession one gallon of corn whisky with intent to violate the proPER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a hibitory liquor laws of the state. Upon his judgment of conviction rendered in the county trial the jury returned a verdict finding him court of Tulsa county on the 17th day of Feb- for 90 days in the county jail and a fine of $250. guilty and fixing his punishment at confinement ruary, 1923, wherein plaintiff in error, Guy Chapman, was found guilty of the offense of From the judgment rendered in accordance with conveying intoxicating liquor, and his punish- the verdict an appeal was taken by filing in this court on May 22, 1923, a petition in error with ment fixed as above stated. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on No brief has been filed and no case-made. April 14, 1923, and the cause was submitted appearance made on behalf of the appellant in this court. An examination of the record dison motion of the Attorney General to affirm the judgment for failure to diligently prosecute closes that it fails to contain a copy of the judgthe appeal on the 8th day of October, 1924. ment and sentence. Evidently this appeal has No brief has been filed in behalf of plaintiff been abandoned. The appeal herein is therein error, and no appearance was made to orally fore dismissed, and the cause remanded to the argue the cause at the time the same was sub-trial court, with direction to carry its judgment and sentence into execution. mitted. Rule 9 of this court provides: "When no counsel appears, and no briefs are filed the court will examine the pleadings, the instructions of the court and the exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and, if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment." After an examination of the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the judgment and sentence, the court finds that no prejudicial error occurred sufficient to authorize a reversal of this judgment, and the same is therefore affirmed.

2

Guy GRUB, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4689.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 25. 1924.) Appeal from County Court, McCurtain County; T. G. Carr, Judge. Guy Grub, convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, appeals. Affirmed. H. P. Hosey, of Idabel, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

Thomas KEARLEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4672.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 29, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Carter County; M. F. Winfrey, Judge. Thomas Kearley was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed. Mathers & Coakley and R. C. Roland, all of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error. George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and N. W. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Thomas

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Kearley, was convicted on a charge of manufacturing certain intoxicating liquor, to wit, Choc beer, and in accordance with the verdict was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. The judgment was rendered January 8, 1923. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on May 8, 1923. The Attorney General has filed PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Guy Grub, the following motion to dismiss the appeal: was convicted on a charge that he did sell about "Comes now George F. Short, the duly qualione-half gallon of whisky to one Lula Valentine, fied and acting Attorney General of the state and his punishment fixed at confinement for 30 of Oklahoma, and moves this honorable court days in the county jail and a fine of $100. He to dismiss the above-styled cause of action, for has appealed from the judgment rendered upon the reason that same was not filed within the such conviction. No brief has been filed and statutory period of time allowed for such purno appearance made on behalf of appellant in pose. It appears from the record that the judgthis court. When called for final submission, ment and sentence was rendered on January 8, the case was submitted on motion of the At-1923, and the record filed in this court on May torney General to affirm the judgment for fail- 8, 1923, which is 121 days after the date of ure to prosecute. We have examined the rec- judgment and sentence, and it further appearord, and find that there is evidence sufficient to ing that no extension of time was granted." support the judgment, and there being no ap- For the reason therein stated, the motion to

[ocr errors]

dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal | pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the is accordingly dismissed.

L. C. MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4641.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Nov. 25, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Custer County; E. J. Lindley, Judge. Affirmed. A. E. Darnell, of Clinton, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, L. C. Montgomery, was convicted on a charge that he did have in his possession 22 gallons of whisky with intent to sell and convey the same, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction. The errors assigned question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. No brief has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error, and the cause was submitted on the motion of the Attorney General to affirm the judgment for failure to prosecute. We have examined the record, and find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, and, there being no apparent error warranting a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.

2

A. J. NEWMAN, Plaintiff in Error, V. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

(No. A-4565.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of
Oklahoma. Nov. 15, 1924.) Appeal from
District Court, Lincoln County; Hal John-
son, Judge. A. J. Newman was convicted of
the crime of embezzlement, and sentenced to
six months' imprisonment in the state peni-
tentiary, and appeals. Affirmed. J. A. Wat-
son, of Bristow, and Jarrett & Speakman, of

Chandler, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney
General, for the State.

exceptions taken thereto, and the judgment and sentence, and, if no prejudicial error appears, will affirm the judgment." After an examination of the pleadings, the instructions of the court, and the judgment and sentence, the court finds that no prejudicial error occurred sufficient to authorize a reversal of this judgment, and the same is therefore affirmed.

3

G. W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4607.) (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Oct. 9, 1924. Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Roger Mills County; E. E Tracy Judge. G. W. Williams was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and appeals. Affirmed. A. J. Welch, of Clinton, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and N. W. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. The information in this case jointly charged G. W. Williams and Whitt Cowart, Tom Brinkley, and Reuben Brinkley with unlawfully manufacturing five gallons of whisky. Upon the trial the jury returned their verdict finding the defendants G. W. Williams and Whitt Cowart guilty as charged in the information, and leaving their punishment to the court, and, rendering judgment on the verdict, the court sentenced the defendant G. W. Williams to be confined in the county jail for 90 days and to pay a fine of $500. From the judgment G. W. Williams, he appealed by filing in this rendered on the verdict against the defendant court on March 23, 1923, a petition in error, with transcript of the record. No briefs have

final submission no appearance was made for
been filed, and when the case was called for
oral argument.
eral in open court moved an affirmation, on
The Assistant Attorney Gen-
the ground that the appeal had not been prop-
erly prosecuted and had been abandoned. The
motion is sustained. The judgment of the
lower court is affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Lon T. WILSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. (No. A-4355.) (Criminal Court of Appeals

of Oklahoma.

Dec. 10, 1924.) Appeal from County Court, Custer County; E. J. Lindley, Judge. Lon T. Wilson, convicted of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors, appeals. Affirmed. Darnell & LaRue, of Clinton, for plaintiff in error.

PER CURIAM. On the 24th day of April, 1922, the county attorney of Lincoln county filed in the district court of said county an information charging the plaintiff in error, A. J. Newman, with having embezzled a certain sum of money from the Singer Sewing Machine Company while acting as agent for said company in the town of Stroud, in Lincoln county, Okl. After arraignment and plea of not guilty, the cause was tried to a jury in the month of August, 1922, resulting in a verdict of guilty, with punishment assessed as above stated. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict on August 19, 1922, and the petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on February 8, 1923. The cause was finally sub-punishment fixed at a fine of $150 and confinemitted on October 6, 1924. No brief has been filed in behalf of plaintiff in error, and no appearance was made to orally argue the cause at the time it was submitted. The record is voluminous, containing more than 500 pages of typewritten matter. The evidence on the part of the state, if believed, is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Rule 9 of this court provides: "When no counsel appears, and no

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Lon T. Wilson, was convicted on a charge of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and his

ment in the county jail for 30 days. He has appealed from the judgment rendered upon such conviction, but no brief has been filed or argument made in his behalf in this court. It appears that the proof on the part of the state establishes a strong case against the defendant, and this proof is undisputed. A careful examination of the record discloses no sufficient reason for a reversal of the judgment. It is

« PreviousContinue »